If the OT really has been superseded then surely the ten commandments are also superseded, and the evidence suggests that this is not at all what they want. That is not to say that the 10 commandments have much to do with today's laws or morality when looked at critically. More of that another day soon - a post on that topic is at the planning stage.
Why is the Old Testament still there in the bible? Because it foretold the coming of Christ. (Or maybe the whole Jesus story was built up to fulfill the prophecies. More on that another day perhaps.)
So, how do we know that this is true that the OT has been superseded? Is it true that its inconvenient laws no longer apply? Maybe it is in the words of Jesus himself. Let's look at the book of Matthew.
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [So the context is OK then? If in doubt you can look it up yourself. It is just after the bit about everyone being 'Blessed' that was mocked so well in Monty Python's 'Life of Brian'.]
5:18 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [Not much doubt then. Not one jot to be changed. Presumably this applies to all the 613 commandments in the Torah, which are represented in the Jewish 'Halacha'. Incidentally what is a tittle? See tomorrow for the answer. Here's a link added later!]
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Note to self! Must remember not to boil any goat kids in their own mother's milk then. (This is the tenth commandment if you read the version in Ex. 34:26 and you can also find it in Deut. 14:21)
21 comments:
"If the OT really has been superseded then surely the ten commandments are also superseded..."
There were two sets of laws, though: God's laws and Moses' laws. Moses' were the temporary, ceremonial laws you'll find in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. They regulated the priesthood, sacrifices, rituals, meat and drink offerings, etc., all of which foreshadowed the cross.
This law was added "till the seed should come," and that seed was Christ (Galatians 3:16, 19). The ritual and ceremony of Moses' law pointed forward to Christ's sacrifice.
When He died, this law came to an end, but the Ten Commandments (God's law) "stand fast for ever and ever." Psalms 111:8.
That there are two laws is made crystal clear in Daniel 9:10, 11.
God's law has existed at least as long as sin has existed. The Bible says, "Where no law is, there is no transgression [or sin]." Romans 4:15. So God's Ten Commandment law existed from the beginning. Men broke that law (sinned--1 John 3:4). Because of sin (or breaking God's law), Moses' law was given (or "added"--Galatians 3:16, 19) till Christ should come and die. Two separate laws are involved: God's law and Moses' law.
Some proof:
MOSES LAW:
Called "the law of Moses" (Luke 2:22).
Called "law...contained in ordinances" (Ephesians 2:15).
Written by Moses in a book (2 Chronicles 35:12).
Placed IN THE SIDE of the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 31:26).
Ended at the cross (Ephesians 2:15).
Added because of sin (Galatians 3:19).
Contrary to us, against us (Colossians 2:14).
Judges no one (Colossians 2:14-16).
Carnal (Hebrews 7:16).
Made nothing perfect (Hebrews 7:19).
God's Laws:
Called "the law of the Lord" (Isaiah 5:24).
Called "the royal law" (James 2:8).
Written by God on stone (Exodus 31:18; 32:16).
Placed INSIDE the ark of the covenant (Exodus 40:20).
Will stand forever (Luke 16:17).
Points out sin (Romans 7:7; 3:20).
Not grievous (1 John 5:3).
Judges all people (James 2:10-12).
Spiritual (Romans 7:14).
Perfect (Psalms 19:7).
Any Bible study would have cleared this up for you, making me question whether the author truly didn't know this, or was just posting things to be confrontational.
Even the briefest consideration (not even study) of the process of logical thinking would suggest that cutting and pasting text from http://www.preparingforeternity.com/mosevs10.htm into a comment does not count as proof. All this effort goes into you pedalling a story that is riddled with inconsistency and obfuscation, and yet you suggest that somehow I'm the one who is being confrontational. If I don't believe that the bible is the inspired word of god then all the arguments from its texts are simply meaningless to me and by no means are they 'proof' of anything other than a delusion.
Christians tend to quote bible passages at anyone who questions their thinking, and to be honest this simply doesn't cut the mustard. The only evidence you have that the bible is true is . . . well . . . that the bible says it is true. As Richard Dawkins has said "I don't need to understand the niceties of the study of fairies to know that I don't believe in fairies".
Don't you see the logical flaws in the argument from Galatians? "Till the seed should come" indeed? For a start this could mean anything. Second - the whole point of my post was that Jesus himself said that not one jot or tittle of the law would change. He didn't distinguish between 'God's law' and 'Moses' law' and anyway that is simply a distraction. Surely whatever Paul said later ought to have less authority to you than what Jesus said? And third - its a bit late for it to be revealed that god (or god via Moses?) didn't really mean the law that way after all. Paul was issuing another new version - effectively the third version indeed - as someone who never even met Jesus and only knew about him from anecdote.
Paul has a rather surprisingly special place in the New Testament doesn't he? It almost seems surprising that Christianity is not called Paulinity. Paul's words could be argued to have affected the world much more that those of Jesus.
So although your comment will have convinced any christian readers totally, it suffers from several logical fallacies that would be spotted quickly by most skeptics. Its use of 'proof by verbosity' about the apparent meaning of the term 'law' in the bible relies on 'quote mining' or 'observational selection', followed by quoting the selected scriptures at us. You use the 'appeal to authority' to tell us what we should believe, simply because the bible says so. This bible is full of 'anecdotal evidence and supressed half truths' so it does not count as a source of any authority.
My question stands. Do the OT laws still count?
p.s. don't forget Matthew 5:17 to 20. In order to get to heaven you have to be more righteous than the Pharisees (who observed the 613 laws of the Mitzvot rather carefully). Or was Jesus really wrong as Paul explained? Or maybe the bible is not accurately representing what it really means?
"Christians tend to quote bible passages at anyone who questions their thinking, and to be honest this simply doesn't cut the mustard. "
Why is it OK then when skeptics quote Dawkins at anyone who values faith above proof? ;) Sorry - had to yank your chain a bit. You raise very valid points and it's worth considering, whether you're Christian or not.
For me personally, it's summed up in these two passages:
"Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters." Romans 14:1.
"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9.
justathought.
Which quote by Dawkins do "skeptics quote at anyone who values faith above proof", please? And in what sense of the word do they offer it as proof of anything?
I generally find arguments more convincing if they are substantiated rather than just asserted in the hope that people won't question the assertion.
plamaengineer.
A tittle is half a jot (or is it the other way round?) :-)
Thanks Rosa - just realised that I never went back and added the link to the post called 'Tittle'. I have done it now.
http://somethingsurprising.blogspot.com/2011/03/tittle.html
"There were two sets of laws, though: God's laws and Moses' laws."
This is not correct. When the NT references the "law and the prophets" it is referencing the Hebrew scriptures to that date. These scriptures consisted of "the law" aka Torah or Pentatuch (the first five books attributed to Moses), the Prophets, (Ketuviim) the writings of the "former" and "latter" prophets, and the "Writings" (Ketuviim).
Thus, when referencing the "law" in "the law and the prophets", the text is referencing the entirety of Hebraic law. Therefore, according to the text, Jesus claims to not change one jot or tittle of the *entirety* of Hebraic law.
This is New Testament 101 stuff.
It's difficult for me to understand how anyone can read Exodus chapter 32 and think this story is inspired by the God referenced within it.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2032&version=NIV
- The Israelites get Aaron to make them a golden calf.
- Yahweh says to Moses, "Those assholes made a golden calf, I'm going to kill some of them."
- Moses talks Yahweh out of it.
- Moses goes down the mountain and sees they've made a golden calf and shatters the stone tablets.
- Moses gets pissed and says that Yahweh has said to slaughter the idolators. He and the Levites kill about 3000 Israelites.
Really? Yahweh said to slaughter the idolators? Didn't Yahweh say HE was going to smite them all and Moses talked him out of it? Talked him out of it just so Moses and the Levites could slaughter them with swords? How does this make ANY sense?
Are there any chapters that you find to make perfect sense? :)
This is an amazing portrait of a God who in His sovereignty shows mercy...check out how many people died in the acount of David's disobedience in counting the Israelites - 2 Sam 24v15...what man must get is that God is utterly sovereign - that's why He is God, not some piece of wood or the gods of the Romans, Egyptians - man's imaginative idea idea of what a god is...
NO...not literally...we won't and can't go to hell for not observing them - that's if you have confessed Jesus, son of God and man as saviour. However, there is madness in the method of the countless of laws that goeverned His people - all of which was to give them life, health and wealth and growth. Thank God for grace in Christ...where Jesus took upon himself that which he knew (and God, the Father) we, in our disobedience and human form could not do! It ALL points to the person of Jesus - the Law (fullfilled in the coming of Christ).
Jesus IS our righteousness - end of story! That is what He was saying to his people. We didn't need the Law to justify us - we needed Christ. We could no longer obtain righteousness through the law - IMPOSSIBLE. Jesus had become our High Priest...He atoned for our sins and sins to come.
Well, that is scripture - right there(-:
Have you noticed that all the vapour-ware comments are not only pseudonymious, but actually anonymous?
Dawkins tends to ask questions whereas the (bronze age) scriptures tend to give (implausible) answers.
And your next question is....?
And your objective evidence is available . . . somewhere . . . no doubt!
I'm not going to try to convince you of my faith, which is Christian, but i do think that a lot of people who criticize any religion fail to remember that faith is a huge part of it. I can't scientifically justify my religion to you because when it comes right down to it, i believe because i have faith that the Bible is true. Throughout all of its laws, stories, ideas, and (in some cases) apparent discrepancies, it still provides millions of people with hope every day and the belief that someone out there cares for them.
Why take that away from people? Now i know that a lot of Bible Thumpers try to cram it into your heads because they think they know better, but there are some people out there who share their faith because they care about you.
According to our belief, if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you go to hell. That's the simple straight to the point gist of it. So if you believed that someone you knew or loved was going to spend eternity in Hell, wouldn't you try and keep that from happening?
@anonymous
except there is no hell in the original bible anywhere. Hades, Tartarus, gehenna in the original NT which are greek deities and personifications of place the greeks believed to exist beneath the earth. Gehenna is the valley of gehinnom a place on earth. The original OT says sheol in place of Hell, which means the grave. someone should study a bible concordance mr. anonymous above. Plus study etymology, the word hell didn't exist until centuries later in europe.
Here is the tall and short of my and everyone else’s dilemma:
Yahusha was only the messenger of YHVH. His gospel was about the kingdom of God, that we must keep the covenant and obey all of God’s laws. Period.
(Forget anything and everything Paul ever wrote...he got his teachings from no man, let alone from Yahusha, but from the third heaven when he was taken up there: go read for yourselves where he brags about that).
El and YHVH are pagan gods, of that I am convinced after many years. Torah is a manufactured myth. The rest of the Tanakh is embroided, exaggerated Israeli history.
THEREFORE, no exodus, no mountain, no giving of Law. Where this leaves the Messiah I have to figure out, after all he insists on no law/no salvation. In Mark 1 he tells the leper to go do his animal sacrifice as is required for his healed hand :(
I believe in God, but not in the God of the Bible. I don’t know what his name is, but there will be a reckoning, so live accordingly.
I am pissed of, extremely so, because I lost friends and family preaching and living Torah, luni-solar sabbath, and eating clean food and keeping the instituted feasts. I have long considered both modern Judaism and all forms of christianity as terrible sects. I only had God’s Word and my own wits, and now that bubble has also been pricked.
So, at 64, I no longer believe ANYTHING written about God by any man or woman, ever.
I don’t know what Truth is, yet, but I surely and certainly know what it is NOT!
Here is the tall and short of my and everyone else’s dilemma:
Yahusha was the messenger of YHVH. He did not come to save anyone. He said he did not come to bring peace on earth, but strife. His gospel was about the kingdom of God: that we must keep our side of the eternal covenant and obey all of God’s laws. Period.
(Forget anything and everything Paul ever wrote...he got his teachings from no man, let alone from Yahusha; but that “mysteries” from the third heaven were “revealed” to him when he was taken up there: go read for yourselves where he brags about this).
El and YHVH are pagan gods, of that I am now finally convinced. It has taken me many many years. Torah is a manufactured myth. The rest of the Tanakh (OT) is embroided, exaggerated Israeli history.
THEREFORE, if no exodus from Egypt, then no mountain, then no giving of the Law. Then all the laws are manmade. Where this leaves the Messiah I have to figure out..after all, he insists on keeping of the law or else no salvation. In Mark 1 he tells the leper to go do his animal sacrifice as is required for his hand being healed.
I believe in God, but not in the God of the Bible. I don’t know what His name is, but there will be a reckoning, so I try to live accordingly.
I am pissed off, extremely so, because I lost friends and family preaching and living Torah, luni-solar sabbath, and eating clean food and keeping the instituted feasts. I walked a lone path. I have long considered both modern Judaism and all forms of christianity to be terrible sects. I only had God’s Word and my own wits, but alas, that bubble has also been pricked.
So, at 64, I no longer believe ANYTHING written about God by any man or woman, ever.
I don’t know what Truth is, yet, but I surely and certainly know what it is NOT!
Post a Comment